not to leave a trace of it, as there virtually isn't in terms of the structure or anything. george, i love having a cohost. i need you to come back. i need you back. this is so great. >> joe is wonderful. you have a great show here. and i am an actor. >> yes. thank you very, very much, george. >> you can see the very last word on the blog at lastword.msnbc.com. be sure to join me on msnbc at noon weekdays for my show "now." racket on the right. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in

washington. let me start tonight with this racket on the right. that's what bill kristol calls the far right fringe, a racket. >> and cat of tough talking

types that goes off the cliff. what's exposed this rift is the fiscal cliff the united states faces this january 1st. the hard righters are attacking any sign of compromise as a white flag of retreat. who is going to come out the winner in this fight? the people who make money pulling conservatives to the hard right or the people who believe conservative officeholders like liberal officeholders have a real stake in making the government work. a far bigger question, will the war on the right help the country unite and avoid the fiscal cliff or will it give the right a chance to bring the house down. with me is ron reagan and dana milbank of the "washington post." before we talk about the gop split, we should republicans in the white house have exchanged horses. that's the thought i have. i may be conservative about this. >> yeah, i think you're right, they'd like to, but i'm not sure

they can get it done before christmas, maybe before the end of the year. i think, again, as we get down to the last few hours, i think then you will see a real push to get something done. as dana implied, everybody knows in a sense what this agreement in broad strokes is going to look like. we're going to have tax increases on the upper 2% and we're not going to have a tax increase on the middle class. and there's going to be some spending cuts. but that's, you know, that's about all we know. >> let's take a look at this fight that seems to be emerging on the right. it's not surprising. to some extent it may be represented on the left, but i don't think so. republicans fall into two camps. on fiscal reform and the question of the cliff. the realists we'll call them and the ideologues we'll call them because it makes sense. former mississippi governor who is a realist, haley barbour, planted him in the realist camp,

and even rush limbaugh has acknowledged republicans' weak position. let's listen to both. >> as a republican, i would take raising the rates on the two top brackets if in return we had tax reform laid out over a period of months, if we had entitlement reform, if you have the whole package. i would hold my nose. >> what i'm saying is i don't think there's a republican alive who can stop what's going to happen. we don't have the leverage, the power isn't there. >> talk about a decisive move. we got him in the realist category, it's a strange brew. then the ideologues. i thought rush was always there. but not this time. they say avoid tax increases at all costs. here is kentucky senator rand paul. let's listen. >> i think the president's got

it exactly backwards. he's adamant about raising taxes, and he's dead wrong. >> what do you think of mr. boehner's idea, cap deductions and get $800 billion in revenues. does that make any sense? >> it's a tax increase. it's a bad idea. >> what kind of question was that to ask him? conservative blogger and editor of redstate.com erick erickson, he wrote a piece entitled "why john boehner must not fold on tax rate increases." it's a shame that republicans are playing into mr. obama's hands negotiating in public among themselves prematurely giving up on the tax issue. this is why i think it's an easy case to make if you're on the right. we had an election. if you respect the election, you must assume they were paying attention when barack obama, the president, as you like to say

appropriately, the president over and over in every speech said we've got to raise the tax rates on the top bracket. and everybody heard it, and everybody who voted for him knew they were voting for that and that was the majority. that would help the conservatives say this time i'll go with the voter. >> and this shows if you live long enough, you will see anything happen, and now we have rush limbaugh being the voice of moderation. >> on the dream team. >> within the republican party. the voice for pragmatic decision making in the party. i think people do realize that. they say it privately. each day more and more of them say it publicly. this is inevitably where we're going, but the republican party is like the lord of the flies.

it's not clear who is in charge. that's why i can't join you. i can't join you in that prediction because it's not clear whether a guy like rand paul has enough people with him -- >> let's talk about the president for a second. you remember cool hand luke. i sometimes think this president is cool hand luke. back when he was fighting hillary, people would say get going, take her on, she's killing you. she was 20 points ahead, he beat her. we watched the campaign, i'm having a stroke, he says i got it, stop being so crazy about this. here he is again playing it very cool. it's now december 11th. they've got ten days under a fast clock to get this done. is he too cool? is he sending a message out there on the stump that he wants

to send? >> yeah. i think he is, and, no, i don't think he's too cool. look, if we go over the fiscal cliff, it will only be for a little while, and it's probably to the democrats' advantage anyway. they'll say the republicans pushed us over the cliff in the first place, and by the way, now that we've gone over the cliff, about 70% of the deficit would take care of it if we stay over the cliff at least. you know, i take dana's reference to "lord of the flies." it's really more like a monkey's wedding or something out there, the disarray in the republican party. >> i have never been to one of those actually. >> well, you can imagine the confusion. yeah. but it's the ideologues versus the pragmatists. the pragmatists simply want to serve their donor base.

that's why they don't want to raise taxes on the rich, but the ideologues have a different game altogether. they want to bring down government basically. >> well, you can't watch the game without a scorecard. here is some more of the people on the pragma side, and it's an unusual shaping up. bill kristol is leading the criticism, that the republicans need a come to jesus moment. he writes, it may be major parts of american conservatism have become such a racket that a kind of refounding of the movement as a cause is necessary. joe scarborough, our colleague, amplified his opinion on "morning joe" yesterday. let's listen to joe. >> conservatism is a racket for a lot of people to get very, very rich. >> david frum, a former speechwriter for "w," agrees

conservatism has been corroded by money. let's listen. >> the conservative followership was fleeced, exploited, and lied to by the conservative entertainment complex. >> this is great stuff. it's basically like an eisenhower speech, military industrial complex. he says basically you have people like rush out there making zillions. people in the blogosphere who just enjoy what they're doing, but there's an entertainment industry led by hannity and the rest of them, and they always take the fringe side. >> sure. it's blindingly obvious what they're saying, but the fact they're now saying it is kind of interesting. if you went back and looked at the tea party, a lot of the so-called populist groups were funded and backed by the u.s. chamber of commerce and other

corporate interests. you have all these well-meaning blue collar republicans out there doing the bidding of millionaires -- >> how are they backed by the chamber? >> all kinds of corporate lobbyists are involved. if you look at the people, they have just been transplanted over from other well-funded groups to try to harness that tea party movement, and well-meaning people were exploited. >> you said you wouldn't mind tiptoeing across the finish line january 1st. i have no idea. i'm afraid of that risk myself, but what are the right wing, what if they bring this house down? they do want this trouble. you don't want this economy to flatten out and go to a second recession. what are the right wingers who don't want any deal want? what is their card game at the end, ron? >> it's kind of a crisis capitalism in a way or crisis governance. they create an emergency by going over the fiscal cliff, and then they say because we have this big emergency, we need to do drastic things to defund mostly the domestic side of government, turn it over to private industry. whether it's health care or anything else. that's their aim. it's to drown the government in their bathtub as grover norquist famously said.

>> i know. that sounds like the late senator moynihan, that the idea of supply side was basically to get rid of so much revenue the it's about torture. many critics say "zero dark thirty" suggests without torture we wouldn't have gotten the guy. but not everyone agrees. that's what the movie's about. it's going to be hot. and the gop's favorite supreme court justice scalia just came out with a sugar plum. here he is. quote, if we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? can we have it against other things? >> do they really need this? finally, let me finish with the problem with justice scalia. i think you just heard it. this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ man ] ring ring... progresso this reduced sodium soup says it may help lower cholesterol, how does it work? you just have to eat it as part of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup.

everyone loves a winner. president obama's job approval rating has been lifted by his re-election victory. several new polls have him above 50%. some by large margins. 50% approve the job is doing versus 47% who disapprove. the president is plus eight in a new gallup poll. 51% versus 43% disapprove. he's plus 12 in the national journal's latest polling, 54%, 42%. in a new associated press poll, president obama is plus 16, 57% approve versus just 41% for

disapprove. by the way, we served the good wine last year as you noticed. we'll be right back. now with a fancy coating that gives you a burst of wildberry flavor. now why make a flavored heartburn pill? because this is america. and we don't just make things you want, we make things you didn't even know you wanted. like a spoon fork. spray cheese. and jeans made out of sweatpants. so grab yourself some new prilosec otc wildberry. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.

satisfaction guaranteed tired of fees piling up introducing chase liquid. the reloadable card with no fee reloads and withdrawals at chase atms. all for one flat monthly fee so there's zero confusion. get rid of prepaid problems. get chase liquid.

welcome back to "hardball." about 10,000 demonstrators took to the michigan state capital today as labor supporters protested two right to work bills in the state long known for its proud union history. the bills would mean workers would not have to join a union or be forced to pay dues, and those bills are headed to the governor's desk right now. republican governor rick snyder had in the past said right to work was a divisive issue but plans on signing the legislation into law making michigan the 24th right to work state. we've got guests on both side of

this fight tonight. bob king is president of the united autoworkers. scott hagerstrom is michigan state director for americans for prosperity. let me show you what the governor said earlier today when he was a guest on "andrea mitchell reports." >> the way i viewed it, it's on the table, it's a hot issue. let's show some leadership, so i stepped up to say when i review it, i think it's a good thing. it's about being pro-worker, giving freedom of choice to workers. secondly it's about economy development. we will get more and better jobs coming to michigan because we're going to be more competitive. it's important to make a distinction with wisconsin and ohio. that was about collective bargaining. that was about the relationship between employers and unions.

this has nothing to do with that. right to work is about the relationship between the union and workers, and this is about being pro-workers, giving workers the choice. if anything, this should encourage unions to be more responsive to workers in terms of saying they need to show a value proposition of why they're a great place to join. >> bob king, thank you, sir, mr. president, for joining us tonight. a lot of our viewers are well younger because they don't remember the fights after world war ii and all the right about right to work. make your case quite simply. why should a worker be forced to join a union? >> well, let's start out with the facts. no worker in america is forced to join a union. the national labor re-elections

act say that any worker -- our uaw constitution says any worker who does not want to be a member does not have to be. they still work. the question here really is do citizens in a community pay their fair share of the police, the fire, the snow removal, any of the services they get from that community? yes, they do. i want to ask governor snyder, is he -- >> no, no. no. bob, let me ask you the question. i know you had fun with me on that one. in other words, you have to pay the equivalent of the dues even if you're not a member of the union, right? you're forced to do it in order to work. >> you don't have to be a member of the union. so it's not about freedom to be in the union or not. you don't have to be a member of the union. >> why should you be forced to

pay the equivalent of union dues in order to work? >> you're responsible to pay your fair share of the cost of representation. if two workers are on the line, they both get the benefit of the contract, they get the raises, the pension, the health care. if you say one worker doesn't have to pay, you're giving him a raise. you're creating divisiveness on the shop floor. everybody should pay their fair share. that's kind of an american principle. we're fighting about that in washington on the fiscal cliff, too. >> let me -- last question for you, suppose the republicans, they don't like the uaw's liberal point of view on politics. >> none of our dues dollars goes to -- very, very little. we raise our money for politics through voluntary contributions.

the money that members pay in dues goes to pay for the representation they get. >> okay. well said. let me go to mr. hagerstrom. same tough questions. why are republicans and your organization against unions, because this is pretty much a union gutting operation. you would like to see -- you work for the koch brothers. they don't like unions. why are you working for them? >> you know, i work for americans for prosperity. this is not about the koch brothers. this is about freedom for -- >> who is paying your salary? >> i work for americans for prosperity -- >> who is paying your salary? >> americans for prosperity. i came here to talk about the policy and -- >> who is paying your salary to do it? who is paying your salary to do what you're doing right now?

>> i just told you. americans for prosperity. >> what is that? >> we've been advocating -- i'm sorry? >> who is paying you to do this today? >> i just told you. americans for prosperity. >> you're not answering my questions. >> we're a nonprofit. i just told you what the answer is. i came here to talk about policy. >> i know but i want to know why. >> my family are union workers, and they had to leave the state a long time ago. because i care about this issue. it's very personal. i grew up in metro detroit. my parents had to leave the state a long time ago because they were union workers. we've lost a lot of jobs here. michigan was a rich state. today we're a poor state. we want to return michigan to economic growth, and we know this governor and legislative

leaders are dedicated to this. what's special about these people that demonstrated here today, when this passes they can still belong to a union. they still have that free choice. nothing changes for them. this is a win/win for everybody. >> so you're not -- just to make this clear, mr. king, you're the president of an international union. you were elected and you serve and you get paid by the union. i understand that. i just want to understand what this other fellow, how he finances his being here today because there's a real question whether you're a front for the owners, for the people that really don't like unions, and you tell me you're not -- you won't answer the question who is paying your salary. that's all i want to know.

who is paying you? >> we have over 3,000 donors. americans for prosperity. i told you. we're a nonprofit like the red cross, like any other nonprofit organization. we're here to talk about the policy and why this is going to move michigan forward. in indiana over 42,000 new jobs. in the same period michigan was stagnant on their employment growth. we want those jobs to come to michigan. >> let me go back to mr. king. >> this is about growing jobs. yes. >> you have had a great -- let me just tell you what i know, how good you are because it was a clean union from the beginning. it's a very liberal union with big picture ideas. isn't just interested in wages and work rules. interested in the welfare of middle class people. you have a great union there.

is this right to work thing really going to hurt your union and kill the esprit de corps of the union workers? why would this hurt them? >> i don't think it will in the uaw. we have great membership loyalty. the problem is it's just the first step. we have watched in this state right wing legislatures pass laws to take away the collective bargaining rights from public sector employees on health care and pensions. they did a petty vindictive law that took away the right to dues deductions for teachers. that's why we're fighting here today, we want to stop this before they try it take away the rights of private sector workers to bargain over wages or pensions or health care. this is about democracy and about america. also want to say for economic

hey sis, it's so great to see you. you, too! oh, cloudy glasses. you didn't have to come over! actually, honey, i think i did... oh? you did? whoa, ladies, easy. hi. cascade kitchen counselor. we can help avoid this with cascade complete pacs. see, over time, cascade complete pacs fight film buildup two times better than finish quantum. to help leave glasses sparkling shiny! too bad it doesn't work on windows. okay, i'm outta here. cascade. the clear choice.

back to "hardball." now to the "sideshow." matt damon does bill clinton. last night he told jay leno about an awkward bill clinton encounter he witnessed at a party back in the '90s. someone brought up "primary colors," that movie that gave a morally challenged portrait of clinton, and damon remembers clinton's response about the actor who refused to play him in the movie. >> in pausing he goes, you know, i understand they offered that part to tom hanks. tom hanks turned it down. he said it was disrespectful to the office of the president of the united states of america. i like tom hanks. >> now we know how clinton tells you what he feels about someone else. next, a lot of republicans

are still trying to figure out how to win elections. one idea, broaden your base to attract more voters. another possibility, keep talking up voter photo i.d. laws and trying to prevent democrats from casting a ballot. enter republican campaign consultant scott tranter. here he is at a panel discussion yesterday talking about why democrats and republicans will never agree about voter i.d. laws. >> i don't hold out any hope there's going to be any great grand bipartisan agreement on voter i.d. laws at the end of the day. a lot of us are campaign officials, campaign professionals, and we want to do everything we can to help our side. sometimes we think that's voter i.d., longer lines, whatever it may be. >> longer lines. at least he's honest. make it hard for the opposition to vote with the i.d. laws or keep them waiting in long lines. good idea, scott. worked a lot this year, didn't it? next, a serious political question. santa claus, democrat or republican? that's one of the questions people were asking in a holiday-themed poll from ppp. the results, no surprise.

44% said santa is a democrat versus 28% who said he's a republican. maybe that's because republicans don't like the giveaway aspect. next question, will president obama get coal or presents this year? it's tight. 51% said gifts, 49% said coal. for mitt romney, it's 63% for gifts, 37% for coal. maybe it's some kind of consolation prize. finally, senate majority leader harry reid paid tribute to ben nelson of nebraska yesterday and fessed up that the outgoing nebraska democrat has something he wants. the hint is in the top half of the picture. you're looking at it. let's take a listen to reid. >> if the truth were known, many, many senators would be very envious, as i am, and i would even think the presiding officer, about that hair of ben nelson's.

i mean, that is a mop of real hair. it's often that people call his office, e-mail his office. they believe he has a toupee. it's his hair. he has hair like a 15-year-old, mr. president, and so i have to acknowledge i am a little envious of his hair. >> hair envy aside, nelson's real mark might be casting what many people called the deciding vote in favor of obama care. that was quite a moment. up next, the new movie "zero dark thirty" suggests we wouldn't have gotten bin laden without torturing terror suspects. not everyone agrees, and that's ahead. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

i'm paige hawkins with breaking news.

welcome back to "hardball." one of the most anticipated movies of the holiday season is "zero dark thirty," the story of the manhunt for osama bin laden. critics have praised it, but it's not without controversy. the film shows brutal scenes of torture against an al qaeda detainee. many who have seen it say

torture provided the groundwork for capturing and killing osama bin laden. one critic says, as a moral statement, "zero dark thirty" is borderline fascistic. as a piece of cinema it's phenomenally gripping. an unholy master work. the director kathryn bigelow said the movie was honest in its depiction of torture. let's hear it. >> i think the film doesn't have an agenda. i think it shows the story of the greatest manhunt in history, and that's part of the history. >> but how honest is that history in the film? many experts say the film gets its facts wrong about the central role torture played. david edelstein joins us as does frank bruni. thank you. it's an honor to have both of you on. david, let me ask you about the movie. is it an honest portrayal of

what happened as best you know? >> i think it's a very neutral portrayal. i don't know the specifics. i didn't talk to any of the cia people involved. what i have heard is that the screenwriter kind of drank the kool-aid and fell in love with his cia sources and are taking their point of view. peter bergen in his book "manhunt" and also in a recent article implies that there was absolutely no link between so-called extreme interrogation and information that led to the courier who ultimately brought them to bin laden. >> for those having seen the film, do you believe it makes the case that torture was essential in killing bin laden? >> can i answer that in a vigorously wishy-washy way? >> i guess you will. >> because i think that kathryn

bigelow, if you look at her last film, "the hurt locker," it began with a quote from chris hedges to the effect that war is a drug, an addiction, and kathryn bigelow is kind of an amoral filmmaker. she portrayed a woman who is basically addicted to revenge, who is on a kind of counter jihad. bigelow takes her point of view and shoots the torture scenes in a neutral way. they are ugly, disturbing, and at the same time given what the film is about, they don't exactly make us want to go out and sign a petition against torture. they are sort of portrayed as ugly but necessary, and i think that's the central question. was it necessary? we know it's ugly. was it necessary? >> so, frank, same two questions to you. is the movie accurate and does it justify means as a justification because of the ends? because you get the bad guy, it's okay to torture somebody along the way. >> i don't think the movie makes the case. i don't think it wades into capturing obama -- i mean

capturing osama is worth torture, but it does suggest very, very strongly without the torture we would never have been able to raid that compound, we would never have gotten there. this is a movie i think it's important to note, the makers of it have said we took a very journalistic approach. they have raised the bar on its accuracy in a way that doesn't happen for other movies. so the fact they imply so strongly, maybe even more than imply, that torture was essential to killing osama bin laden, and there are a lot of questions among experts about whether that's so, i think that's a big issue to be discussed. >> well, let me go back to david. i have seen about three movies that might be considered fascistic. i'm not saying they're bad. i happened to like the movies. one was "the chase." i definitely think that had that element, "straw dogs," of course, "history of violence." the good guys get to be the violent people. that narrows it down without getting too ideological about it. is this one of those movies that people like me would like? the good guys get to be the violent people? >> it's not as extreme as the tv series "24." but there is in the american action cinema and particularly this idea that means justify ends, and that it's just a given that in order effectively to fight criminals or evildoers, that the heroes have to descend to the same moral level, and i

think bigelow, who is a male oriented filmmaker, does buy into this myth. well, the question is, is it a myth? is it a myth? is it a valid archetype? what is it? i think we have to debate that. >> can we defeat terrorism by playing by gentlemanly rules, to use the same kind of reference point? >> you're asking a film critic? you're really asking a film critic? >> you guys make moral judgments all the time. >> actually, i don't know the answer to that, but i do know if you look at our fiction -- our so-called dramatic or narrative cinema, that is ringingly endorsed in the same way that, you know, the death penalty and vengeance is sanctified in our cinema. if you look at a documentary like alex gibney's great oscar-winning film "taxi to the dark side," you have a lot of fbi people, not cia, arguing that extreme interrogation

doesn't work. that it makes people psychotic. that friendly interrogation, in fact, does a lot more to getting information. i don't think friendly interrogation, frankly, is quite as cinematic. >> did torture play an essential role in the hunt for bin laden? that's the question. dianne feinstein says unequivocally no. she spent three years looking at millions of pages of evidence. earlier she wrote, cia did not first learn about the existence of osama bin laden courier for detainees subjected to subjective interrogation techniques. instead, the cia learned of the existence of the courier, his true name and location, through means unrelated to the cia detention and interrogation program. that's after her statement, and one of the fbi interrogators who was successful in getting information from al qaeda detainees using noncoercive

means has strongly criticized the cia's use of torture saying it didn't work. listen to what he says on "60 minutes" about what happened after a cia interrogator showed up to take over the questioning of one of the detainees he had been dealing with. let's watch. >> supposedly he's an expert in the field. so i asked him, do you know anything about islamic fundamentalism? he said no. have you ever interrogated anybody? no. he basically said no, he knows human nature. >> and how does he react to this? >> he basically stopped cooperating. >> the information dried up? >> yes, totally. >> frank, is that true? that he stopped talking after they start getting rough with him? >> i don't know enough about the particular case. i can't answer that. >> let me ask you generally about this. how is this going to come out? frank, you're a general

columnist. i read you a couple times a week. how is this going to play with most people, liberals and everyone, when they watch a movie which has this tough approach to getting an evil person. how are we going to react to it? as a general society. >> i think some liberals will be pretty upset because i think most people will walk out of this movie with the impression that torture was a vital part of getting osama bin laden in the end, and the history of this, the experts about this, that's not what they say. there's debate about this, and there's a strong belief among many of the most trustworthy experts that torture is not necessary in these sorts of interrogations and to get this sort of information, and so i think a lot of liberals -- i don't want to even do this in liberals and conservatives. i think a lot of people who have moral qualms about torture and

don't want to accept it too easily as a necessary technique are going to feel a bit uneasy about this movie. that's not to say it's not a terrific movie as a movie, but the bar for this movie is a little bit different and higher because the makers have said they took a journalistic approach. >> chris, let me say one more thing about the film. in its defense, torture only occupies about the first 30 minutes. i know for many people that's quite enough, and there is an enormous amount of detective work involved in actually finding the location of the courier. the other thing is that the movie -- it kind of fudges. i have to say they kind of fudge the actual revelation. they torture the guy, it doesn't work, and then they trick him into saying that he said something that he didn't say, and then he spills everything in a very calm and casual way. so -- >> but, david, didn't you have the sense that was a product of him having been broken? >> absolutely. certainly. >> i always tell people, i have been watching movies for years with stars i don't like, and i like them in the movie. so i think it's one more thing we have to use our discernment when we watch. thank you very much, frank and david. >> thank you. up next, supreme court justice antonin scalia's latest insult to gay americans. is this what the republican party needs right now? this is "hardball," the place for politics. enough for sexual activity.

do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

we're back. supreme court justice antonin scalia is causing controversy for comments he made while selling his book at princeton. the associated press reports a gay student asked about the justice's comparisons between anti-sodomy laws. the associated press reports a guy student asked about the justice's comparisons between anti-sodomy laws and laws against murder and bestiality. scalia replied i don't think it's necessary, but i think it's effective. it's a form of argument that i thought you would have known. i'm page hopkins. we're following that breaking news story out of portland, oregon. a masked gunman entered a mall. right now we're hearing from the

clackamas county sheriff's office. two are believed dead. let's take a listen. >> the shooter is still alive. >> the shooter has been neutralized. i don't have the exact information on that. i will give it to you as soon as i have it. >> do you have any officers inside and out estimate? >> i don't have an exact count. but there is probably -- there is county, multiple cities, state, federal law enforcement. so dozens and dozens and dozens of officers at the scene. >> can you confirm what the shooter was wearing? we heard he had on a mask. >> i have no details to release about the shooter at this time. >> are we talking about more than one person dead? >> we believe there is at least one deceased and maybe more. >> any idea how many shots were fired? >> no. >> people have not heard from their family members may be worried that they could be here or they could be hurt.

what do you want them to know? what is your advice? >> be patient. the event is calmed down at this point there are people that you won't be able to reach until we get them out of the mall and get them to a phone there will be people that are giving interviews and talking to the police that you won't be able to reach. be patient with us. we're trying to get everyone in contact with their loved ones. if they have concern, come to the clackamas county sheriff's office and we'll answer the questions as soon as we can. >> can you walk us through the basics of how this began, what people saw and where he went? >> of course, when these things happen, lots of calls, lots of witnesses through 911. so we respond immediately to the scene. several officers close by. lots of conflicting information about location, number of people, and that type of stuff. we have done our best to work through that. respond to what the witness reports say, what we hear and what we see. and move as fast as we can to address and stop the situation. >> so the first officers ran in to try and find him? >> yes. >> do you know whether he was

believes the constitution as he said in the same speech is dead, dead, dead. and we should go back to the intent and stand athwart it yelling stop. i think we are seeing his personal opinions of homosexuality coming forward in what he said. the problem for him is that's not the court's job. the state and the country has a compelling interest with murder. is there a compelling interest in stopping people from getting married? that's the problem he'll have. >> my approach is if you're conservative on these issues, even if you're a chief justice or whatever you are. why doesn't he just say call me old fashioned or anything. just why do you have to be nasty? i think it's the question of nastiness. your thoughts, christine. as a gay woman, is there a proper way for someone who disagrees with you to talk? >> there is. i've had any number of conversations with people who disagree with marriage equality, disagree with different lgbt issues. and you know what? two people who disagree sitting down and talking in a dignified why leads to deeper

understanding. maybe some day one person changing their opinion. my father always said it's nice to be nice. and it is. and you should treat other human beings even if you disagree with them, even if you dislike who they are, in a respectful way. the justice was disrespectful to me and my family. and that doesn't further my understanding him better or him understanding me better. which is ultimately where we all want to be headed in life. >> you sound like a smart politician. anyway, thank you christine quinn. and joy, as always. you can play any position on this team. we'll be right back. let me finish tonight with t of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup.

let me finish tonight with this. scalia. for those who grew up like i did, he's a familiar guy. all those years my dad was in columbus, there was guys like justice scalia around. they were at the picnics, christmas parties. my dad's best friend gene shields played his helper. the guy who did that stunning somersault coming down the aisle of the old church hall declaring santa claus is coming. yes, i know guys like scalia. faithful guys who hung out with the boys for whom monday night was holy named and friday night was bowling night. they were old fashioned guys. good guys. family men. while they were democrats and republicans, they were not the